User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2008/June

Request for new CG image

Any chance you would be prepared to do up something for 2008 Hewa Bora Airways crash? There aren't any free images of a DC-9-51 in HBA livery, although there are many unfree ones on the net. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You have good timing :) I was just working on improving my DC-9 model in order to create a derivative DC-8 from its nose/fuselage. Long story short, I have to redo all previous textures to use the new DC-9 and am really more in the mood for something new, like this. Anynobody 04:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Thank you.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered difficulty pinning down the exact livery of this airplane. I usually start at http://www.airliners.net to see if any pictures exist, and indeed one does a 2006 picture showing plain white livery. Given the age, I decided to see what the crash scene looked like keeping an eye out for identifiable pieces which indicate that it had stripes not in the 06 picture. Ordinarily what I'd do is look at their fleet of similar aircraft during the same time, only they don't appear to operate enough DC-9s to get photo coverage and to complicate matters Hewa Bora has a diverse fleet with different livery schemes for each type. (They fly Boeing (including McD-Ds) and Lockheed planes.)

Since I can't determine its livery at the time of the crash I'm thinking the best way to handle this is by using the 2006 livery and render the plane in the air. (The caption would explain the CG pictures old livery.) However I'm open to alternatives or new sources, do you have any? :) Anynobody 02:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a peek at [1], [2], [3] and [4] Most of these are unfree, but you can judge for yourself.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, there were some images I hadn't seen, but like those I had the parts of the plane I needed to see appear to be burned. I assume the stripes were added to the plain white Hewa Bora 2006 livery the plane is shown in on airliners.net because it'd be cheaper to add the stripes on top of the white livery than it would've been to paint over the airline name on the fuselage to move it. I'll put together some ideas :) Anynobody 04:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it took so long to get this ready, the good news is that the rest is easy so when we decide how to have the plane look creating the final image will not take long. I still couldn't find any info about where Hewa Bora appeared on the a/c at the time of the crash. Anynobody 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please note that you are close to violating 3RR. Back and forth reversion will accomplish nothing, while a talk page discussion can. Crum375 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what a reversion is? It's removing changes and reverting to a previous version, which is what you're doing. Anynobody 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and so are you. If you keep doing so, and violate 3RR, you will be blocked (not by me, as I am clearly involved.) Crum375 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and so are you. No... like I said above reverting is removing changes and reverting to a previous version. Perhaps you've been reverting too quickly to notice that I've been adding to the article and you've been reverting to an old version. What old version am I reverting to? Anynobody 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anyeverybody - sorry to butt in here. but it looks like this is now skating perilously close to an edit war. Neither of you seems to be able to convince the other of the "rightness" of your positions, so that means it's time to get some outside perspective on the question, either at a project level, or through an RfC. Do you have a preferred forum in which to take this up? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, indeed I've been considering such an action. However if the opposition were actually correct it seems like he/she should be able to prove it through our policies and guidelines. Instead I've been pointed to irrelevant aspects of them (ie saying WP:OR is somehow being violated without specifically saying how.) Moreover analyzing the article's history I think WP:OWN issues may be in play which indicates a bigger overall problem than a disagreement over an image. Anynobody 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps - but often it's not a simply black-and-white case of right vs wrong, which is where wider perspectives might help out. The one thing that is plain is that kept between the two of you, things aren't moving forwards at all. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I also suspect he/she hasn't stopped to either look at the image in question or read the new material (per his/her latest arguments), until I'm sure I want to avoid bringing in outside editors and causing any unnecessary embarrassment. Anynobody 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The one thing that is plain is that kept between the two of you, things aren't moving forwards at all. I totally agree there, usually I've found this occurs because someone is operating under either an incorrect impression or on emotion. If it's the former I wanna make sure I give every effort to fix it, if the latter then I'll definitely need outside help. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not emotionally attached to the image, has Crum made an argument you think I should look at again because honestly if he/she made a valid point to exclude an illustration over a generic photo I'd accept it.) Anynobody 02:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody, you have violated WP:3RR and if I report it to WP:AN3, you could be blocked for it. You are also persisting in violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV by forcing in your own self-made images that take sides in disputed issues. Please take this opportunity to revert yourself, so I won't need to report you. I am assuming you are doing all this in good faith, and your goal is to help Wikipedia, but you must realize that we need to follow our policies while doing so. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody - I've left a proposal on Crum's talk page - could you please take a look and say whether you find it agreeable? Crum - I think invoking 3RR or AN3 will only be counterproductive at this stage, since it looks to me that you're equally culpable here. Let's just call a truce for now, cool down and wait to see what others think, OK? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Crum's page)I'm fine with your suggestion, assuming by freeze you mean Crum and I leaving it as is and not locking the page? (I'd prefer to minimize the impact on non-involved folks wishing to edit the page.) Anynobody 03:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyeverybody, I have reported you for 3RR violation, since you have not reverted yourself. I would remove my own report if you do it before an admin acts on it. Crum375 (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, again you've baffled me. When person A adds sourced material, person B reverts it, and A replaces the reverted material and adds even more sourced info only person B has committed a reversion:A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. Anynobody 03:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care all that much, but I don't think a 3D rendering of an airplane is what the policy had in mind by saying that user-authored images are not original research. Users "are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams", but the media needs to be appropriate. For example, we wouldn't illustrate Frank Beamer with a user-authored 3D model of his head. Even in the case of someone deceased for whom no free content is available - like Frank Loria - we would not use a 3D model. A disagram might be useful for showing a timeline of the crash, points of impact, or some such thing (see Image:World Trade Center 9-11 Attacks Illustration with Vertical Impact Locations.svg for a good example), but using a 3D model essentially as a stock photo showing what the plane looked like isn't much more useful than a 3D model of Frank Loria would be. Anyway, that's just my opinion as someone not involved. Take it for what it's worth. --B (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

...we wouldn't illustrate Frank Beamer with a user-authored 3D model of his head. Nor would I advocate doing so, in fact I actually try not to depict people whenever possible. I understand your point, really, but there is a huge difference between illustrating a person like ...Frank Loria... and an aircraft. Going into this I assumed some people wouldn't like such illustrations, but figured more people would and thus far that has been the case. In fact you and Crum are the only editors to object. I hope you understand that though I sympathize with your feelings, I'm still gonna render accident aircraft. Anynobody 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the disputed image

Hi Any. I don't know if you've noticed, but Crum is now accusing you of "violating the 3RR with impunity" because the page protection still allows the image to change when you upload new versions of it. In the interests of keeping the peace, could I ask you to (1) revert the image with the current image name back to the (mostly black) version that was in place when the page was protected, and (2) upload revisions under a different image name or names while discussions are taking place. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) revert the image with the current image name back to the (mostly black) Sure thing, I reverted it, but I don't understand why since his issue seemed to center on minutia related to the incident itself and the simple illustration addressed them.

(2) upload revisions under a different image name or names while discussions are taking place. Honestly I can't say I won't do this again,(on other articles, not this one of course) because changing the image mid-discussion has actually served to amicably end disputes up till now. In fairness I must point out that this was an attempt at compromise. Anynobody 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions. You're supposed to be able to watch this programme from the BBC's website free of charge for a week, but I couldn't find it there, presumably because of the US 'gagging order'. Trust you are well. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed, muchas gracias :) A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations. I hope that they are trying to gag this because there are ongoing criminal investigations which they don't want to compromise or something. Anynobody 07:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC regarding Brainiac: Science Abuse

Since you had participated in the discussion earlier, I thought you should know that there is now a Request for Comments on whether the TV show Brainiac: Science Abuse counts as science, pseudoscience, or something in-between. If you have further comments on the subjct your input here would be appreciated. -- HiEv 20:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a few comments, in my opinion we should follow the sources and call it a science show. Anynobody(?) 02:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Great improvement to Animation article

Image:Invisible Barnstar.png

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Brilliant. Pic explains better than the Siamese method article Victuallers (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'm tempted to look for other math concepts to illustrate ;) Anynobody(?) 07:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)